social influence content Flashcards
(30 cards)
types of conformity
KELMAN:
- identified 3 types of conformity
— internalisation > a deep, lasting change in beliefs and behaviour, publicly and privately
— identification > a temporary change in behaviour to fit into. group, without deeply accepting their beliefs
— compliance > outwardly going along with group, privately disagreeing
DEUTSCH & GERARD:
- identified 2 explanations for conformity
— informational social influence (ISI) > conforming because of a desire to be correct
— normative social influence (NSI) > conforming to be liked or accepted by others
strengths of types of conformity
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR ISI:
- lucas et al > found people conformed more with difficult maths problems, supporting ISI
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR NSI:
- asch > showed people conformed to avoid rejection, supporting NSI
REAL LIFE APPLICATIONS:
- used NSI to reduce energy consumption, showing practical use
limitations of types of conformity
OVERLAP OF ISI AND NSI:
- had to separate when someone is conforming to be correct (ISI) or to fit in (NSI)
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES:
- mcghee & teevan > found people with a greater need for social approval; conform more, showing not everyone is equally influenced
CULTURAL BIAS:
- research like asch may not apply to all cultures
asch’s research on conformity
ASCH:
- studied how group pressure affects conformity
— methodology > 123 male american college students took part in a lab experiment where they completed a simple line-matching task. they were placed in a group with confederates (actors) whp deliberately ave wrong answers
— variables tested > group size, unanimity, task difficulty
— key conclusion > 75% of participants conformed at least once, showing how social pressure can strongly influence behaviour
strengths of asch’s research on conformity
CLEAR EVIDENCE OF GROUP INFLUENCE:
- showed how group size, agreement and task difficulty affect conformity
RELIABLE STUDY DESIGN:
- the controlled lab setting made it easier to study cause and effect
CROSS-CULTURAL SUPPORT:
- bond & smith > confirmed similar findings in other cultures
limitations of asch’s research on conformity
OUTDATED FINDINGS:
- perrin & spencer found low conformity in the UK, suggesting asch’s results may not apply today
ARTIFICIAL TASK:
- fiske > argued the line task wasn’t realistic, limiting real-world application
ETHICAL CONCERNS:
- participants were deceived, which could have caused stress
conformity to social roles: zimbardo’s research
ZIMBARDO:
- conducted the stanford prison experiment (SPE) to study how people conformed more with to social roles
— methodology > 24 emotionally stable male university students were randomly assigned as guards or prisoners in a mock prison in the basement of stanford university
— procedure > the guards were given uniforms, batons and sunglasses, which prisoners were arrested at home and given prison uniforms. the study was planned for two weeks but stopped after six days due to extreme behaviour
— key conclusion > people quickly conform to social roles, leading to abusive behaviour in guards and helplessness in prisons
strengths of conformity to social roles: zimbardo’s research
HIGH LEVEL OF CONTROL:
- randomly assigning roles increased the study’s reliability
REAL-WORLD RELEVANCE:
- helps explain behaviour in prisons and similar situations
DEMONSTRATES POWER OF SOCIAL ROLES:
- clearly shows how roles can influence behaviour
limitations of conformity to social roles: zimbardo’s research
LACK OF REALISM:
- banuazizi & mohavedi > suggested participants were acting rather than truly conforming
IGNORES PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES:
- fromm > argued some guards were naturally aggressive, suggesting dispositional factors were ignored
ETHICAL ISSUES:
- participants suffered emotional distress, raising concerns about harm
INCONSISTENT FINDINGS:
- reicher & haslam > failed to replicate the results, questioning reliability
obedience: milgram’s research
MILGRAM
- investigated obedience to authority figures
— methodology > 40 male participants aged from 20-50 from new haven, USA, were recruited through a newspaper advert for a ‘memory study’. the study was a controlled lab experiment at yale university. participants were assigned the role of teacher and instructed to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to a learner (actor). for incorrect answers. the shocks ranged from 15V to 450V
— key conclusion > 65% of participants obeyed to the highest voltage (450V), showing that ordinary people can follow harmful orders when instructed by authority figures
strengths of obedience: milgram’s research
HIGH EXTERNAL VALIDITY:
- hofling > showed similar obedience in nurses following unethical orders in a hospital
RESEARCH SUPPORT:
- sheridan & king > found high obedience even when participants thought they were shocking a real puppy
GROUNDBREAKING RESEARCH:
- revealed the powerful influence of authority on behaviour
limitations of obedience: milgram’s research
LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY:
- orne & holland and perry > argued participants didn’t believe the shocks were real
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION:
- reicher & haslam > suggested social identity theory explains obedience. participants identified with the experimenter’s goals
ETHICAL ISSUES:
- participants suffered extreme stress and guilt, and were deceived, raising serious ethical concerns
obedience: situational variables
MILGRAM:
- explored how different situational factors affect obedience
— proximity > when the teacher and learner were n the same room , obedience dropped to 65% to 40%. when the teacher had to physically force the learner’s hand onto a shock plate, obedience dropped to 30%
— location > moving the study from yale university to a run-down office building reduced obedience to 47.5%
- uniform > when the experimenter wore everyday clothes instead of a lab coat, obedience fell to 20%
— key conclusion > situational factors like proximity, location and uniform greatly influence obedience
strengths of obedience: situational variables
RESEARCH SUPPORT:
- bickman > found people were more likely to obey someone in a security guard uniform than someone in everyday clothes
CROSS-CULTURAL REPLICATION:
- miranda > replicated the study in spain and found similar obedience rates, increasing generalisability
limitations of obedience: situational variables
LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY:
- orne & holland > argued participants might have realised the setup was fake
LACK OF ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY:
- mandel > criticised milgram for providing an ‘obedience alibi’ claiming real-life atrocities are more complex
social-psychological factors
MILGRAM:
- explained obedience through several social-psychological factors
— agentic state > people act as agents for authority figures, shifting responsibility to them and reducing feelings of guilt
— binding factors > strategies used to reduce moral strain and continue obeying, such as blaming the victim or minimising the harm caused
— legitimacy of authority > people obey authority figures when they see as legitimate, often due to societal norms and upbringing
— institutional legitimisation > obedience increases when authority is linked to respected institutions (e.g. yale university in milgram’s study)
— key conclusion > obedience is influenced by authority figures’ legitimacy, binding factors. that reduce guilt and the authority of institutions
strengths of social-psychological factors
RESEARCH SUPPORT:
- blass & schmidt > found that participants in milgram’s study blamed the experimenter, supporting the agentic state explanation
REAL-WORLD APPLICATION:
- kelman & hamilton > used these concepts to explain war crimes such as the mylai massacre
INSTITUTIONAL INFLUENCE:
- milgram > found that obedience dropped from 65% to 47.5% when the study was moved from yale university to a rundown office, supporting the role of institutional legitimacy
limitations of social-psychological factors
LIMITED EXPLANATION:
- hofling > showed that nurses obeyed without distress, suggesting the agentic state alone can’t explain obedience
OBEDIENCE ALIBI:
- mandel > criticised the theory for allowing people to avoid responsibility for harmful actions
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES:
- kilham & mann > found different obedience levels across cultures, suggesting situational explanations are not universal
dispositional factors
ADORNO:
- propose the authoritarian personality to explain obedience, characterised by extreme respect for authority and hostility towards those of lower status. this personality develops through harsh, strict parenting
— f-scale > a questionnaire used to measure authoritarian traits
ALTEMEYER:
- introduced right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) with 3 traits:
— conventionalism > rigid adherence to social norms
— authoritarian submission > obedience to authority figures
— authoritarian aggression > hostility towards out-groups
— key conclusion > individuals with authoritarian trait, especially RWA , are more likely to obey authority figures
strengths of dispositional factors
RESEARCH SUPPORT:
- milgram & elms > found higher f-scale scores among participants who fully obeyed in milgram’s study, supporting the link between authoritarian traits and obedience
FOCUSED EXPLANATION:
- altemeyer > refined the concept with RWA, providing clearer evidence of personality links to obedience
limitations of dispositional factors
POLITICAL BIAS:
- christie & jahoda > criticised the f-scale for focusing only on right-wing ideology, ignoring left-wing authoritarianism
METHODOLOGICAL FLAWS:
- greenstein > highlighted that the f-scale suffers from acquiescence bias (tendency to agree)
CORRELATION, NOT CAUSATION:
- a relationship exist between authoritarian traits and obedience, but causation is not proven
resistance to social influence
resistance to social pressure is explained by:
- social support > seeing others resist conformity or obedience encourages individuals to resist too. e.g. in milgram’s study, obedience dropped when participants had a dissenter partner
- locus of control (LoC) > rotter > people with an internal LoC believe they control their own actions and are more resistant to social pressure. those with an external LoC believe their behaviour is influenced by external factors (e.g. luck, other people)
- key conclusion > social support and an internal LoC increase resistance to conformity and obedience
strengths of resistance to social influence
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR SOCIAL SUPPORT:
- allen & levine > found reduced conformity when participants has a supportive partner
RESISTANCE TO OBEDIENCE:
- gamson > showed groups were more resistant to obedience, highlighting the power of social support
LOC RESEARCH SUPPORT:
- holland > found individuals with an internal LoC were more resistant to obeying authority
limitations of resistance to social influence
CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE:
- twenge > found that people today have more of an external LoC but still show resistance to social influence, challenging the theory
LIMITED ROLE OF LOC:
- rotter > argued that LoC only affects behaviour in new situations
OVER-SIMPLIFIED EXPLANATION:
- LoC doesn’t fully explain why people resist social influence
